Section 904.07. Subsequent remedial measures.

  When, after an event, measures are taken which, if taken previously, would have made the event less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct in connection with the event. This section does not require the exclusion of evidence of subsequent measures when offered for another purpose, such as proving ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted, or impeachment or proving a violation of s. 101.11 .

Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R87 (1973). Evidence of subsequent remedial measures by the mass producer of a defective product is admissible in a products liability case if the underlying policy of this section not to discourage corrective steps is not applicable. Chart v. General Motors Corp. 80 Wis. 2d 91 , 258 N.W.2d 681 (1977). Evidence of a remedial change was inadmissible when the defendant did not challenge the feasibility of the change. Krueger v. Tappan Co. 104 Wis. 2d 199 , 311 N.W.2d 219 (Ct. App. 1981). Evidence of post-event remedial measures may be introduced under both negligence and strict liability theories. D. L. v. Huebner, 110 Wis. 2d 581 , 329 N.W.2d 890 (1983).